Timeline for Is the frequentist framework more appropriate than the Bayesian one, according to Popper's theory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 10, 2017 at 19:40 | comment | added | Scortchi♦ | I recall Deborah Mayo's drawn some connections between frequentist inference & Poppper's ideas (see her blog). (But for me, & I'm sure for many statisticians, it's the theoretical premises promulgated by philosophers of science that ought to be judged in light of the successes of both statistical frameworks. "Anything goes!" :)) | |
| May 5, 2017 at 20:57 | history | edited | amoeba | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| May 5, 2017 at 19:03 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackStats/status/860570587273547777 | ||
| May 5, 2017 at 17:03 | comment | added | Henry | Popper did not like the use of probabilities in science, so would not have approved of either statistical approach. His attempt to develop a propensity probability did not make much sense in the real word. See the related hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/3176/… | |
| May 5, 2017 at 14:27 | answer | added | user160235 | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 5, 2017 at 13:12 | comment | added | Tim | Regarding your edit, please notice that "single counterexample" is single counterexample no matter of your methodology, it has nothing to do with statistical hypothesis test! | |
| May 5, 2017 at 13:10 | history | edited | Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typo correction and integration
|
| May 5, 2017 at 12:49 | answer | added | Tim | timeline score: 18 | |
| May 5, 2017 at 12:35 | history | asked | Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |